Ugh. The description of this issue, that nitrogen is a pollutant, irked me. Nitrogen isn’t a pollutant. Most of what we breathe is nitrogen. If we’re going to talk about an issue in a scientific manner, details matter. This is akin to the EPA calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, which is absolute, anti-scientific poppycock. Anyone spouting such drivel identifies themselves as a political animal with little knowledge of science.

Whew. Quite an opening rant, I know. Let me collect myself. Now, what were we talking about? Nitrogen. As I said, about 78% of air is N2, a molecule of two nitrogen atoms. This is an inert gas that doesn’t interact with anything. It’s just filler in our atmosphere — like styrofoam peanuts in a packing box. Nitrogen is a vital chemical for life, but plants can’t use the nitrogen in the air because of its inertness.

So, the issue is nitrogen compounds like ammonia (NH3) and NOx (NO, NO2), pronounced nox. These latter two are created inside internal combustion engines because the temperatures there get so hot that it breaks apart the nitrogen molecules in the air. Ammonia comes from cow manure. These three are indeed pollutants of some concern, but since we aren’t going to be giving up cars or burgers anytime soon, what can we do?

Take a chill pill. Seriously. First, all three are plant fertilizers. Second, NOx pollution is down 15% in the last five years. While ammonia pollution has been rising, mostly due to increasing livestock numbers on our eastern plains, stockyards are enthusiastic about mitigating the problem. They are actively testing some methods to protect the manure when an upslope storm approaches. It seems we are on the right path already.

I have a personal interest in keeping Rocky Mountain National Park pristine. I visit the park often. I’ve been there six times so far this year. I’ve climbed Longs Peak more than one hundred times over the years. It still looks wild and pristine. I’ve noticed no change in Chasm Lake over the decades I’ve visited it. Stand down, alarmists.

Bill Wright, bill@wwwright.com

It took a lot for me to give up smoking. Although I read the research, I was able to fool myself into continuing my habit because, for a long time, I had none of the symptoms everyone was warning me about. Despite my respect for good science, information alone was not enough. However, there was a critical turning point in my relationship with cigarettes, when the embarrassment, inconvenience and incipient respiratory side-effects of smoking were joined by a recognition that my use of cigarettes was a bona fide “problem.”

Like smoking, meat consumption can look and feel like a reward and a sign of success. Also like smoking, meat consumption harms our own health and, much like second-hand smoke, endangers the health of others through the “exhaust fumes” emitted by the cows/manure at the factory farms that produce the meat. Thus, like smoking, meat consumption should be treated as a problem rather than as an appropriate way to meet our needs. That is, we need to change the dominant narrative around meat consumption the way we changed the narrative around smoking. This means dismantling the meaning of meat so that its connection with extreme weather events is front and center whenever we consider ordering or buying a steak. It means training ourselves to look past the sauces and other preparations that allow us to “forget” that we are eating another mammal. Perhaps most importantly, it means adopting an empathic approach to those, including ourselves, who look to meat for various forms of physical and psychological gratification.

More specifically, we need to supplement data on the environmental and physical effects of meat and factory farming not only with social and economic pressure but also with social and economic support. This approach would entail using the power of taxation to make meat less affordable, make other sources of protein more affordable, and raise funds to assist those who have been negatively affected by these changes in making a transition to the new reality. It would also involve developing public service ads to explain the health and environmental effects of meat as well as the inhumanity of factory farming. These efforts would be reinforced by providing the kind of support for those who seek to quit meat that we provide for those who seek to quit smoking. We must come to view meat as just as self-destructive as smoking and as every bit as potentially hurtful to others as second-hand smoke.

Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com